Language barriers

FRSA Ben Bennetts argues that in seeking to engage people in public debate and in the projects we do, the RSA and its Fellows need to use a vocabulary that is fit for purpose.

Next month, the Plain Writing Act of 2010 comes into force in the US. It seems to be like the Plain English Campaign with teeth. Not a bad idea, not least if it forces government officials to think, really think, about how ordinary people react to information.

For example: a few years ago I passed a road sign saying "Roadworks start here 4th February for 17 weeks". Useful information. Except that you glimpse the sign for a few seconds, and spend the next mile trying to count 17 weeks forward from 4th February. I called the council and suggested they change it to "Road works here from 4th February to early June". They could not see the problem.

Language has many different functions, and it is neither possible nor appropriate to come up with a universal vernacular that fulfills them all. Jargon may be inaccessible to the lay reader, but it is vastly more precise to the specialist. It makes perfect sense to have complex technical instructions for those who administer benefits or planning law, and plain English guides for the citizen telling them what to expect when they apply.

But some concepts just cannot be simplified beyond a certain point. Language has evolved over thousands of years to become capable of conveying complex and exacting ideas. That fact alone is one of the wonders of human achievement. There is, to be sure, a skill in being able to convey complex ideas simply but for any idea or concept or message, there is a point beyond which it cannot be simplified without distorting or destroying its meaning. The greater skill, surely, is in knowing where to stop.

The problem with jargon arises in three cases. First, inept translation from jargon to plain English. Second, where the audience expands beyond that for which the language was originally intended, for example when lay people get hold of technical material online. Thirdly, where authors do not understand or acknowledge the linguistic capabilities and limitations of their audience.

This last is perhaps the most problematic of all. It is often unintentional and seldom malicious, but happens all the time. I was recently reading the RSA pamphlet on Arts Funding, Austerity and the Big Society. I work in the public sector; I am an arts graduate and consider myself reasonably intelligent and well-informed. I would like to think that I could engage with this debate. But from the outset I encountered the term 'instrumentalism'. I had to read the first ten pages before I could glean from the context what the authors meant by it. ‘Instrumental’ meant something different when I took my music degree.

Is the word 'instrumentalism' in widespread use in arts management? Quite probably. Is this pamphlet intended solely or even primarily for arts professionals, though? I hope not. The last thing we need, in a time of austerity, is for the debate about the public value of the arts to be confined to politicians and arts administrators.

Sadly the RSA's blogs, and those of some Fellows, can sometimes suffer from the same phenomenon. Posts themselves may be clear and engaging: this from Tessy Britton, is a case in point. But the comments that follow them can become dominated by social entrepreneurs with a shared but exclusive vocabulary. In this example, 'advocacy organising', 'community organising' and 'neighbourhood organising' clearly mean three specific but distinct things, but I’ve no idea what.

Like management-speak, the words comprising the vocabulary of 'social-entrepreneur-speak' are often borrowed from the wider vernacular, but seem to have become re-defined. As an informed lay reader, I therefore recognise the words but cannot understand their meaning, so I am prevented from engaging in the conversation. I should probably seek enlightenment about what some of these terms mean, but of course I never do. Why not? Because we confuse fluency in jargon with general intelligence. Because I don't want to appear stupid by exposing my ignorance of jargon in the presence of all these erudite people. The result, intentional or not, is that this language doesn't convey ideas. It creates barriers.

I have a challenge to put to my fellow Fellows and to RSA staff. You have something important to say, and you want to engage with as wide a spectrum of people as possible when you say it. You have developed a vocabulary to help you in your work. That is fine. That is what vocabulary is for. So share your vocabulary with us. Help us to understand what you have to say, in all its complexity and specificity. Help us to join the conversation.

Because I’m pretty sure that social enterprise needs more than social entrepreneurs to get involved if it is really going to work.

Ben Bennetts FRSA is a business change manager with Hampshire County Council. He is also editor of the blog Power of Language, where a fuller version of this article first appeared.

6
Comments

Join the discussion

I don't know how the UK is, but here in the USA, if you're working with changing how social services work, hats off to you for even being willing to take the job. From what I've observed here, those who went into this line of work for wonderful reasons either quit or become dispassionate after having to slug through the daily challenge of facing those left behind by the society they live in all while being bound by rules that make no sense.

From where I sit, not only are you insightful, but you probably qualify for sainthood. Don't think I could take on that challenge at all....LOL

TamrahJo

17th June 2011

So true! I liked your response to Mark - I once held the following job title:

Business Operations and Logistics Operations Manager

My real job was to streamline data entry operations and increase efficiency in collecting data/reporting regarding the change order processes - I had to encourage folks to speak up about what all they could accomplish and what ideas beneficial to the company they had to implement if they weren't overloaded with redundant data entry activities and to allay fears that 'streamlining' meant layoffs.

In short - I went to meetings all day, listened to those who feared change meant the end of their livelihood, talked to managers to help them see all the wonderful talent they had working for them and interfaced with computer geeks to make applications end-user friendly - - - - I also had to converse with 5 companies all competing for job slots on a contract none of them could handle by themselves and trying (desperately) to sell the "hey, we're all on the same side' concept.

I think my title should have been:

"Understand others' fears, listen and find win/win solutions"

LOL

After the first 3 months, I refused to respond or communicate anything other than bare facts/statistical data in emails - - and this job was an email environment. I chose to spend all day in meetings with folks, because that was the only way to get anything accomplished - all emails did was slow down the process and waste time, energy and money through miscommunication, misunderstandings borne in fear, etc., etc.

After that experience, I no longer wondered how wars get started.

At the end of my stint, savings: $238,000 first year. ROI - $357,000 (temp data entry operators no longer needed).

Layoffs - 1 - - Me.....LOL But I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Once true communication happens, it's spectacular what all we can do.

I already stated, but Bravo again, for the insightful piece.

Ben Bennetts

16th June 2011

@ce5103cab9bb8cbde2d6ba6f1ba881d8:disqus - you are, of course, absolutely right about the value of face-to-face communication over the online version. We are so used to thinking of the internet as a force for good in communications, that we have perhaps lost sight of its drawbacks and risks as a communication tool (I don't mean the obvious things like cyber-stalking, I mean the subtler things, like the ease with which people can talk over the top of one another.) What you are describing involves a skill that is rapidly becoming endangered - the art of listening.

Ben Bennetts

16th June 2011

@Mark - it's a fair cop! Like far too many job titles, it is local-government-speak and bears a limited relationship to what I spend my time doing. It is an interesting exercise to see if I can describe my job without resorting to phrases like ‘business transformation agenda’.

At present I'm on the project team for a new office building in Havant - http://www.havant.gov.uk/havan... - which will bring together county and borough council staff to provide better (and better focused) services. At the moment most of my work is as client for the building work (take a look at http://wp.me/p16xbS-1L ), but I also work with front-line staff - mostly social workers - on changing the way they work.

Mark Townsend

16th June 2011

Completely agree with what you say. Glad to hear I'm not alone.

However, there is one thing I'm not clear on: you're described as a "business change manager". What on Earth does that involve? ;-)